When a death is caused during a sudden, spontaneous fight without pre-meditation, and the prosecution fails to prove the specific intention or knowledge required for murder or culpable homicide, the offense is categorized as causing hurt rather than homicide if the injury does not constitute grievous hurt.

JUDGMENT :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the de-facto complainant challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paramakudi in SC No.124 of 2015 dated 30.06.2022, wherein, the trial Court had acquitted the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 from all charges.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2015, when A1 and A2 were collecting wood in a property, which does not belong to them, PW1 and PW2 went to that place and questioned A1 and A2 as to how they can take the wood from the property. As a result, there was a wordy quarrel. On the same day at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased and his children went to the house of the accused persons and questioned them as to how they can take the wood from the property, which is yet to be partitioned. At that point of time, A1, A2 and their son started pelting stones. A2 is said to have slapped the deceased and when he fell down, A1 is said to have attacked the deceased on his chest with stone. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and as a result, an FIR came to be registered based on the complaint given by PW1 in Crime No.22/2015 for offences under Sections 336 and 302 r/w34 IPC.

3. The respondents 2 and 3 were added as A1 and A2 and their son was included as A3. Since he was a juvenile, he was tried separately before the Juvenile Justice Board.

4. The FIR was registered by PW13, after receiving the intimation from the Mudukulathur Government Hospital based on the statement recorded from PW1, who was taking treatment in the hospital. The FIR was marked as Ex.P7.

5. PW15 took up the investigation and went to the scene of crime at1.30 a.m. on 18.04.2015 and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P8. He conducted the inquest on the dead body at about 7.00 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Ex.P9.

6. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by PW11 through whom postmortem report (Ex.P6) was marked.The following injuries were noted in the postmortem certificate:

“External injury: Swelling of the right and left chest

2. Abrasion over the left chest 3 x 3 cm size

Opening of thorax: Heart ruptured. Both lungs congested and ruptured. Blood (500ml) collected in the Thoracic cavity. On opening of the abdomen: Liver congested. All the visceral organ are pale.”

7. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and collected all the reports and laid the charge sheet before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, which was taken on file in PRC No.25/2015. After service of copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed and made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, which was taken on file in SC No.124/2015.

8. The trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 336 and302 r/w 34 IPC and the accused persons denied the charges. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW18 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and relied upon MO1.

9. The incriminating evidence were put to the accused, when they were questioned under Section 313 (i)(b) of Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false.

10. The accused persons did not examine any witnesses nor relied upon any documents.

11. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of o